Conference Coverage

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

Some nonsleepy patients with coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may receive cardiovascular benefit from continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, according to a post hoc analysis of the RICCADSA clinical trial. That study found no benefit among patients overall, but the new analysis found that patients whose heart rate increases (delta heart rate, or dHR) more than average during apnea or hypopnea experienced fewer cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events during apnea or hypopnea when treated with CPAP.

Although RICCADSA showed no benefit, an analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) cohorts found that elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. But the effect was seen only in nonsleepy patients. “We hypothesized that pulse rate response to apneas would predict which patients with OSA may most benefit from CPAP treatment. Now, our study suggests that there is, in fact, a subgroup of nonsleepy patients with OSA for whom CPAP could provide a reduction in risk, specifically those with a higher pulse rate response to their respiratory events,” Ali Azarbarzin, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Azarbarzin presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1103). He is in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and is assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study is in line with recent efforts to subgroup OSA patients to determine which are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and other complications, and which are most likely to respond to treatment, according to Esra Tasali, MD, of the University of Chicago, who moderated the session where the study was presented. “The field is really urgently in need of coming up with new methods, and I think this study is getting a handle on that,” said Dr. Tasali in an interview.

“I think that this is really pointing toward a new area that the whole (sleep field) is moving toward, which is better phenotyping of sleep apnea so that we can come up with more personalized treatments,” said Dr. Tasali.

The patients who appeared to gain a cardiovascular benefit from CPAP represented about 16% of trial participants. Dr. Azarbarzin refrained from making clinical recommendations, citing the need for more data. The team next plans to reproduce the findings in additional, larger trials such as the SAVE and ISAACC trials. “Ultimately, our goal is to confirm our findings in a future randomized controlled trial of CPAP by enrolling participants based on their pulse rate response,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

The RICCADSA study was a single center randomized, controlled trial with 226 patients with coronary artery disease and OSA who were randomized to CPAP or no CPAP treatment. In the overall population, CPAP treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P = .435). That study assumed that the effect of OSA on CVD is similar across all subgroups of dHR.

The mean increase in heart rate was 7.1 beats per minute (BPM; standard deviation, 3.7). Each standard deviation increase in dHR was linked to greater CVD risk (HR, 1.45; P = .029). For each standard deviation decrease in dHR, treatment with CPAP decreased the CVD risk (HR, 0.54; P = .043).

For patients with a low dHR of 4 BPM, the hazard ratio for CVD was 0.8 with no CPAP treatment and 1.2 for CPAP treatment. For those at the mean value of 7 BPM, the HRs were 1.1 and 0.9 respectively. For those with a high dHR, (10 BPM), the hazard ratio was 1.6 without treatment and 0.7 with CPAP.

“We modeled delta heart rate interaction with CPAP, which was significant. What this means is that for someone with a mean delta heart rate of 7 beats per minute, the risk reduction (with CPAP) is similar to what RICCADSA reported. But if you look at those with high delta heart rate, the risk reduction was significantly larger. It was actually a more than 50% reduction of risk with CPAP treatment,” said Dr. Azarbarzin.

Dr. Azarbarzin has consulted for Somnifix and Apnimed and has received grants from Somnifix. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.

While colorectal cancer may be the most common and deadly gastrointestinal malignancy, liver and gastric cancers account for some of the most consistent racial and ethnic disparities, a recent retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data suggested.

Liver and gastric cancer incidence and mortality were significantly higher for all racial and ethnic minority groups in the study, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to the analysis. Notably, however, non-Hispanic Blacks represented the only group to also have elevated incidence and mortality for pancreatic and colorectal, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to investigator Aileen Bui, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles Health.

These study results highlights the need to address modifiable cancer risk factors and overcome barriers to cancer prevention and care in medically underserved minority populations, Dr. Bui said in a virtual presentation of the results at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“While we cannot infer causation or determine risk factors for certain malignancies from the results of our study, there’s little data to support a strong role of biological or genetic differences between racial and ethnic groups to account for the observed disparities in incidence and mortality for GI cancers,” she said in her presentation.
 

Setting out to explore disparities

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality remain on the rise, despite significant progress in some areas, including colorectal cancer screening and the introduction of effective treatments for hepatitis C virus, Dr. Bui said.

Incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancers are set to increase by 34% and 43%, respectively, by the year 2040, and will remain a significant contributor to cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, according to the researcher.

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality are known to vary by race and ethnicity, so Dr. Bui and colleagues sought to assess the extent of racial and ethnic disparities for individual gastrointestinal cancer types. They identified more than 140,000 incident cases of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, esophageal, and gastric cancers in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2013 to 2017. They also incorporated nearly 185,000 mortality cases for those same types of malignancy from National Center for Health Statistics data from the years 2014 to 2018.
 

Breaking down the numbers

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer was highest, at 36.9 (cases per 100,000), followed by pancreatic cancer at 11.0, gastric cancer at 7.1, esophageal cancer at 4.1, and liver cancer at 3.0, Dr. Bui’s data show. The mortality rate was again highest for colorectal cancer, followed by pancreatic, liver, esophageal and gastric cancer.

When compared with non-Hispanic Whites, all racial ethnic minority groups had significantly higher incidence of both liver and gastric cancers, according to Dr. Bui.

The researchers calculated rate ratios for gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality, with ratios above 1 indicating a higher incidence relative to non-Hispanic Whites.

Among Hispanics, the incidence rate ratios were 1.83 for both liver and gastric cancers, according to the analysis. Similarly, non-Hispanic Asian Pacific Islanders had IRRs of 2.00 for liver cancer and 1.9 for gastric cancer. Non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives had IRRs of 2.09 for liver cancer and 1.51 for gastric cancer.

By contrast, non-Hispanic Blacks had significantly higher IRRs not only for liver and gastric cancers, at 1.64 and 1.8, respectively, but also for pancreatic cancer, at 1.18, and colorectal cancer at 1.17, Dr. Bui said.

Similar trends were seen in mortality in the presented data, with all racial and ethnic groups exhibiting significantly increased mortality RRs for liver and gastric cancer, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, but with non-Hispanic Blacks showing significantly increases in RRs for liver (1.66), gastric (2.36), pancreatic (1.22), and colorectal (1.36) cancers.

Esophageal cancer rates of incidence and mortality were both lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, compared with non-Hispanic whites, according to Dr. Bui.
 

Increasing screening and surveillance

While the esophageal cancer data is encouraging, these data otherwise clearly highlight the need to step up efforts to help level gastrointestinal cancer disparities, according to Byron Cryer, MD, professor of internal medicine and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity and development at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

AGA Institute

“Clearly more work needs to be done for the other four cancers,” Dr. Cryer said in an interview.

Screening and surveillance may be key to addressing those disparities, not only for colorectal cancer, but for the liver and gastric cancers for which disparities were seen throughout racial and ethnic groups in this study.

“We know that if we get rid of hepatitis C virus early, you can prevent those downstream complications such as cancer,” Dr. Cryer said. “It’s same thing with the gastric cancer – if we get rid of Helicobacter pylori early on in the infection, we decrease the burden of cancer down downstream years later.”

Dr. Bui provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Cryer has nothing to disclose.

While colorectal cancer may be the most common and deadly gastrointestinal malignancy, liver and gastric cancers account for some of the most consistent racial and ethnic disparities, a recent retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data suggested.

Liver and gastric cancer incidence and mortality were significantly higher for all racial and ethnic minority groups in the study, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to the analysis. Notably, however, non-Hispanic Blacks represented the only group to also have elevated incidence and mortality for pancreatic and colorectal, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to investigator Aileen Bui, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles Health.

These study results highlights the need to address modifiable cancer risk factors and overcome barriers to cancer prevention and care in medically underserved minority populations, Dr. Bui said in a virtual presentation of the results at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“While we cannot infer causation or determine risk factors for certain malignancies from the results of our study, there’s little data to support a strong role of biological or genetic differences between racial and ethnic groups to account for the observed disparities in incidence and mortality for GI cancers,” she said in her presentation.
 

Setting out to explore disparities

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality remain on the rise, despite significant progress in some areas, including colorectal cancer screening and the introduction of effective treatments for hepatitis C virus, Dr. Bui said.

Incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancers are set to increase by 34% and 43%, respectively, by the year 2040, and will remain a significant contributor to cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, according to the researcher.

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality are known to vary by race and ethnicity, so Dr. Bui and colleagues sought to assess the extent of racial and ethnic disparities for individual gastrointestinal cancer types. They identified more than 140,000 incident cases of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, esophageal, and gastric cancers in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2013 to 2017. They also incorporated nearly 185,000 mortality cases for those same types of malignancy from National Center for Health Statistics data from the years 2014 to 2018.
 

Breaking down the numbers

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer was highest, at 36.9 (cases per 100,000), followed by pancreatic cancer at 11.0, gastric cancer at 7.1, esophageal cancer at 4.1, and liver cancer at 3.0, Dr. Bui’s data show. The mortality rate was again highest for colorectal cancer, followed by pancreatic, liver, esophageal and gastric cancer.

When compared with non-Hispanic Whites, all racial ethnic minority groups had significantly higher incidence of both liver and gastric cancers, according to Dr. Bui.

The researchers calculated rate ratios for gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality, with ratios above 1 indicating a higher incidence relative to non-Hispanic Whites.

Among Hispanics, the incidence rate ratios were 1.83 for both liver and gastric cancers, according to the analysis. Similarly, non-Hispanic Asian Pacific Islanders had IRRs of 2.00 for liver cancer and 1.9 for gastric cancer. Non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives had IRRs of 2.09 for liver cancer and 1.51 for gastric cancer.

By contrast, non-Hispanic Blacks had significantly higher IRRs not only for liver and gastric cancers, at 1.64 and 1.8, respectively, but also for pancreatic cancer, at 1.18, and colorectal cancer at 1.17, Dr. Bui said.

Similar trends were seen in mortality in the presented data, with all racial and ethnic groups exhibiting significantly increased mortality RRs for liver and gastric cancer, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, but with non-Hispanic Blacks showing significantly increases in RRs for liver (1.66), gastric (2.36), pancreatic (1.22), and colorectal (1.36) cancers.

Esophageal cancer rates of incidence and mortality were both lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, compared with non-Hispanic whites, according to Dr. Bui.
 

Increasing screening and surveillance

While the esophageal cancer data is encouraging, these data otherwise clearly highlight the need to step up efforts to help level gastrointestinal cancer disparities, according to Byron Cryer, MD, professor of internal medicine and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity and development at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

AGA Institute

“Clearly more work needs to be done for the other four cancers,” Dr. Cryer said in an interview.

Screening and surveillance may be key to addressing those disparities, not only for colorectal cancer, but for the liver and gastric cancers for which disparities were seen throughout racial and ethnic groups in this study.

“We know that if we get rid of hepatitis C virus early, you can prevent those downstream complications such as cancer,” Dr. Cryer said. “It’s same thing with the gastric cancer – if we get rid of Helicobacter pylori early on in the infection, we decrease the burden of cancer down downstream years later.”

Dr. Bui provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Cryer has nothing to disclose.

While colorectal cancer may be the most common and deadly gastrointestinal malignancy, liver and gastric cancers account for some of the most consistent racial and ethnic disparities, a recent retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data suggested.

Liver and gastric cancer incidence and mortality were significantly higher for all racial and ethnic minority groups in the study, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to the analysis. Notably, however, non-Hispanic Blacks represented the only group to also have elevated incidence and mortality for pancreatic and colorectal, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to investigator Aileen Bui, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles Health.

These study results highlights the need to address modifiable cancer risk factors and overcome barriers to cancer prevention and care in medically underserved minority populations, Dr. Bui said in a virtual presentation of the results at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“While we cannot infer causation or determine risk factors for certain malignancies from the results of our study, there’s little data to support a strong role of biological or genetic differences between racial and ethnic groups to account for the observed disparities in incidence and mortality for GI cancers,” she said in her presentation.
 

Setting out to explore disparities

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality remain on the rise, despite significant progress in some areas, including colorectal cancer screening and the introduction of effective treatments for hepatitis C virus, Dr. Bui said.

Incidence and mortality from gastrointestinal cancers are set to increase by 34% and 43%, respectively, by the year 2040, and will remain a significant contributor to cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, according to the researcher.

Gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality are known to vary by race and ethnicity, so Dr. Bui and colleagues sought to assess the extent of racial and ethnic disparities for individual gastrointestinal cancer types. They identified more than 140,000 incident cases of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, esophageal, and gastric cancers in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2013 to 2017. They also incorporated nearly 185,000 mortality cases for those same types of malignancy from National Center for Health Statistics data from the years 2014 to 2018.
 

Breaking down the numbers

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer was highest, at 36.9 (cases per 100,000), followed by pancreatic cancer at 11.0, gastric cancer at 7.1, esophageal cancer at 4.1, and liver cancer at 3.0, Dr. Bui’s data show. The mortality rate was again highest for colorectal cancer, followed by pancreatic, liver, esophageal and gastric cancer.

When compared with non-Hispanic Whites, all racial ethnic minority groups had significantly higher incidence of both liver and gastric cancers, according to Dr. Bui.

The researchers calculated rate ratios for gastrointestinal cancer incidence and mortality, with ratios above 1 indicating a higher incidence relative to non-Hispanic Whites.

Among Hispanics, the incidence rate ratios were 1.83 for both liver and gastric cancers, according to the analysis. Similarly, non-Hispanic Asian Pacific Islanders had IRRs of 2.00 for liver cancer and 1.9 for gastric cancer. Non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives had IRRs of 2.09 for liver cancer and 1.51 for gastric cancer.

By contrast, non-Hispanic Blacks had significantly higher IRRs not only for liver and gastric cancers, at 1.64 and 1.8, respectively, but also for pancreatic cancer, at 1.18, and colorectal cancer at 1.17, Dr. Bui said.

Similar trends were seen in mortality in the presented data, with all racial and ethnic groups exhibiting significantly increased mortality RRs for liver and gastric cancer, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, but with non-Hispanic Blacks showing significantly increases in RRs for liver (1.66), gastric (2.36), pancreatic (1.22), and colorectal (1.36) cancers.

Esophageal cancer rates of incidence and mortality were both lower in racial and ethnic minority groups, compared with non-Hispanic whites, according to Dr. Bui.
 

Increasing screening and surveillance

While the esophageal cancer data is encouraging, these data otherwise clearly highlight the need to step up efforts to help level gastrointestinal cancer disparities, according to Byron Cryer, MD, professor of internal medicine and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity and development at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

AGA Institute

“Clearly more work needs to be done for the other four cancers,” Dr. Cryer said in an interview.

Screening and surveillance may be key to addressing those disparities, not only for colorectal cancer, but for the liver and gastric cancers for which disparities were seen throughout racial and ethnic groups in this study.

“We know that if we get rid of hepatitis C virus early, you can prevent those downstream complications such as cancer,” Dr. Cryer said. “It’s same thing with the gastric cancer – if we get rid of Helicobacter pylori early on in the infection, we decrease the burden of cancer down downstream years later.”

Dr. Bui provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Cryer has nothing to disclose.

For veterans, changes in colonoscopy screening caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased risks of delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and could lead to worse CRC outcomes, based on data from more than 33,000 patients in the Veterans Health Administration.

After COVID-19 screening policies were implemented, a significantly lower rate of veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC underwent colonoscopy, lead author Joshua Demb, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Veterans Health Administration enacted risk mitigation and management strategies in March 2020, including postponement of nearly all colonoscopies,” the investigators reported. “Notably, this included veterans with red flag signs or symptoms for CRC, among whom delays in workup could increase risk for later-stage and fatal CRC, if present.”

To measure the effects of this policy change, Dr. Demb and colleagues performed a cohort study involving 33,804 veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC, including hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, or abnormal guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Veterans were divided into two cohorts based on date of first red flag diagnosis: either before the COVID-19 policy was implemented (April to October 2019; n = 19,472) or after (April to October 2020; n = 14,332), with an intervening 6-month washout period.

Primary outcomes were proportion completing colonoscopy and time to colonoscopy completion. Multivariable logistic regression incorporated a number of demographic and medical covariates, including race/ethnicity, sex, age, number of red-flag signs/symptoms, first red-flag sign/symptom, and others.

Before the COVID-19 policy change, 44% of individuals with red-flag signs or symptoms received a colonoscopy, compared with 32% after the policy was introduced (P < .01). Adjusted models showed that veterans in the COVID policy group were 42% less likely to receive a diagnostic colonoscopy than those in the prepolicy group (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.61). While these findings showed greater likelihood of receiving a screening before the pandemic, postpolicy colonoscopies were conducted sooner, with a median time to procedure of 41 days, compared with 65 days before the pandemic (P < .01). Similar differences in screening rates between pre- and postpandemic groups were observed across all types of red flag signs and symptoms.

“Lower colonoscopy uptake was observed among individuals with red-flag signs/symptoms for CRC post- versus preimplementation of COVID-19 policies, suggesting increased future risk for delayed CRC diagnosis and adverse CRC outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

Prioritization may be needed to overcome backlog of colonoscopies

Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, lead scientist for ColonCancerCheck, Ontario’s organized colorectal cancer screening program, and a gastroenterologist and scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, shared similar concerns about delayed diagnoses.

“We might expect these cancers to present ... at a more advanced stage, and that, as a result, the outcomes from these cancers could be worse,” Dr. Tinmouth said in an interview.

She also noted the change in colonoscopy timing.

“A particularly interesting finding was that, when a colonoscopy occurred, the time to colonoscopy was shorter during the COVID era than in the pre-COVID era,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “The authors suggested that this might be as a result of Veterans Health Administration policies implemented as a result of the pandemic that led to prioritization of more urgent procedures.”

According to Dr. Tinmouth, similar prioritization may be needed to catch up with the backlog of colonoscopies created by pandemic-related policy changes. In a recent study comparing two backlog management techniques, Dr. Tinmouth and colleagues concluded that redirecting low-yield colonoscopies to FIT without increasing hospital colonoscopy capacity could reduce time to recovery by more than half.

Even so, screening programs may be facing a long road to recovery.

“Recovery of the colonoscopy backlog is going to be a challenge that will take a while – maybe even years – to resolve,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “Jurisdictions/institutions that have a strong centralized intake or triage will likely be most successful in resolving the backlog quickly as they will be able to prioritize the most urgent cases, such as persons with an abnormal FIT or with symptoms, and to redirect persons scheduled for a ‘low-yield’ colonoscopy to have a FIT instead.” Ontario defines low-yield colonoscopies as primary screening for average-risk individuals and follow-up colonoscopies for patients with low-risk adenomas at baseline.

When asked about strategies to address future pandemics, Dr. Tinmouth said, “I think that two key learnings for me from this [pandemic] are: one, not to let our guard down, and to remain vigilant and prepared – in terms of monitoring, supply chain, equipment, etc.] ... and two to create a nimble and agile health system so that we are able to assess the challenges that the next pandemic brings and address them as quickly as possible.”The investigators and Dr. Tinmouth reported no conflicts of interest.

For veterans, changes in colonoscopy screening caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased risks of delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and could lead to worse CRC outcomes, based on data from more than 33,000 patients in the Veterans Health Administration.

After COVID-19 screening policies were implemented, a significantly lower rate of veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC underwent colonoscopy, lead author Joshua Demb, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Veterans Health Administration enacted risk mitigation and management strategies in March 2020, including postponement of nearly all colonoscopies,” the investigators reported. “Notably, this included veterans with red flag signs or symptoms for CRC, among whom delays in workup could increase risk for later-stage and fatal CRC, if present.”

To measure the effects of this policy change, Dr. Demb and colleagues performed a cohort study involving 33,804 veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC, including hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, or abnormal guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Veterans were divided into two cohorts based on date of first red flag diagnosis: either before the COVID-19 policy was implemented (April to October 2019; n = 19,472) or after (April to October 2020; n = 14,332), with an intervening 6-month washout period.

Primary outcomes were proportion completing colonoscopy and time to colonoscopy completion. Multivariable logistic regression incorporated a number of demographic and medical covariates, including race/ethnicity, sex, age, number of red-flag signs/symptoms, first red-flag sign/symptom, and others.

Before the COVID-19 policy change, 44% of individuals with red-flag signs or symptoms received a colonoscopy, compared with 32% after the policy was introduced (P < .01). Adjusted models showed that veterans in the COVID policy group were 42% less likely to receive a diagnostic colonoscopy than those in the prepolicy group (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.61). While these findings showed greater likelihood of receiving a screening before the pandemic, postpolicy colonoscopies were conducted sooner, with a median time to procedure of 41 days, compared with 65 days before the pandemic (P < .01). Similar differences in screening rates between pre- and postpandemic groups were observed across all types of red flag signs and symptoms.

“Lower colonoscopy uptake was observed among individuals with red-flag signs/symptoms for CRC post- versus preimplementation of COVID-19 policies, suggesting increased future risk for delayed CRC diagnosis and adverse CRC outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

Prioritization may be needed to overcome backlog of colonoscopies

Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, lead scientist for ColonCancerCheck, Ontario’s organized colorectal cancer screening program, and a gastroenterologist and scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, shared similar concerns about delayed diagnoses.

“We might expect these cancers to present ... at a more advanced stage, and that, as a result, the outcomes from these cancers could be worse,” Dr. Tinmouth said in an interview.

She also noted the change in colonoscopy timing.

“A particularly interesting finding was that, when a colonoscopy occurred, the time to colonoscopy was shorter during the COVID era than in the pre-COVID era,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “The authors suggested that this might be as a result of Veterans Health Administration policies implemented as a result of the pandemic that led to prioritization of more urgent procedures.”

According to Dr. Tinmouth, similar prioritization may be needed to catch up with the backlog of colonoscopies created by pandemic-related policy changes. In a recent study comparing two backlog management techniques, Dr. Tinmouth and colleagues concluded that redirecting low-yield colonoscopies to FIT without increasing hospital colonoscopy capacity could reduce time to recovery by more than half.

Even so, screening programs may be facing a long road to recovery.

“Recovery of the colonoscopy backlog is going to be a challenge that will take a while – maybe even years – to resolve,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “Jurisdictions/institutions that have a strong centralized intake or triage will likely be most successful in resolving the backlog quickly as they will be able to prioritize the most urgent cases, such as persons with an abnormal FIT or with symptoms, and to redirect persons scheduled for a ‘low-yield’ colonoscopy to have a FIT instead.” Ontario defines low-yield colonoscopies as primary screening for average-risk individuals and follow-up colonoscopies for patients with low-risk adenomas at baseline.

When asked about strategies to address future pandemics, Dr. Tinmouth said, “I think that two key learnings for me from this [pandemic] are: one, not to let our guard down, and to remain vigilant and prepared – in terms of monitoring, supply chain, equipment, etc.] ... and two to create a nimble and agile health system so that we are able to assess the challenges that the next pandemic brings and address them as quickly as possible.”The investigators and Dr. Tinmouth reported no conflicts of interest.

For veterans, changes in colonoscopy screening caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased risks of delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and could lead to worse CRC outcomes, based on data from more than 33,000 patients in the Veterans Health Administration.

After COVID-19 screening policies were implemented, a significantly lower rate of veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC underwent colonoscopy, lead author Joshua Demb, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Veterans Health Administration enacted risk mitigation and management strategies in March 2020, including postponement of nearly all colonoscopies,” the investigators reported. “Notably, this included veterans with red flag signs or symptoms for CRC, among whom delays in workup could increase risk for later-stage and fatal CRC, if present.”

To measure the effects of this policy change, Dr. Demb and colleagues performed a cohort study involving 33,804 veterans with red-flag signs or symptoms for CRC, including hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, or abnormal guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Veterans were divided into two cohorts based on date of first red flag diagnosis: either before the COVID-19 policy was implemented (April to October 2019; n = 19,472) or after (April to October 2020; n = 14,332), with an intervening 6-month washout period.

Primary outcomes were proportion completing colonoscopy and time to colonoscopy completion. Multivariable logistic regression incorporated a number of demographic and medical covariates, including race/ethnicity, sex, age, number of red-flag signs/symptoms, first red-flag sign/symptom, and others.

Before the COVID-19 policy change, 44% of individuals with red-flag signs or symptoms received a colonoscopy, compared with 32% after the policy was introduced (P < .01). Adjusted models showed that veterans in the COVID policy group were 42% less likely to receive a diagnostic colonoscopy than those in the prepolicy group (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.61). While these findings showed greater likelihood of receiving a screening before the pandemic, postpolicy colonoscopies were conducted sooner, with a median time to procedure of 41 days, compared with 65 days before the pandemic (P < .01). Similar differences in screening rates between pre- and postpandemic groups were observed across all types of red flag signs and symptoms.

“Lower colonoscopy uptake was observed among individuals with red-flag signs/symptoms for CRC post- versus preimplementation of COVID-19 policies, suggesting increased future risk for delayed CRC diagnosis and adverse CRC outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

Prioritization may be needed to overcome backlog of colonoscopies

Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, lead scientist for ColonCancerCheck, Ontario’s organized colorectal cancer screening program, and a gastroenterologist and scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, shared similar concerns about delayed diagnoses.

“We might expect these cancers to present ... at a more advanced stage, and that, as a result, the outcomes from these cancers could be worse,” Dr. Tinmouth said in an interview.

She also noted the change in colonoscopy timing.

“A particularly interesting finding was that, when a colonoscopy occurred, the time to colonoscopy was shorter during the COVID era than in the pre-COVID era,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “The authors suggested that this might be as a result of Veterans Health Administration policies implemented as a result of the pandemic that led to prioritization of more urgent procedures.”

According to Dr. Tinmouth, similar prioritization may be needed to catch up with the backlog of colonoscopies created by pandemic-related policy changes. In a recent study comparing two backlog management techniques, Dr. Tinmouth and colleagues concluded that redirecting low-yield colonoscopies to FIT without increasing hospital colonoscopy capacity could reduce time to recovery by more than half.

Even so, screening programs may be facing a long road to recovery.

“Recovery of the colonoscopy backlog is going to be a challenge that will take a while – maybe even years – to resolve,” Dr. Tinmouth said. “Jurisdictions/institutions that have a strong centralized intake or triage will likely be most successful in resolving the backlog quickly as they will be able to prioritize the most urgent cases, such as persons with an abnormal FIT or with symptoms, and to redirect persons scheduled for a ‘low-yield’ colonoscopy to have a FIT instead.” Ontario defines low-yield colonoscopies as primary screening for average-risk individuals and follow-up colonoscopies for patients with low-risk adenomas at baseline.

When asked about strategies to address future pandemics, Dr. Tinmouth said, “I think that two key learnings for me from this [pandemic] are: one, not to let our guard down, and to remain vigilant and prepared – in terms of monitoring, supply chain, equipment, etc.] ... and two to create a nimble and agile health system so that we are able to assess the challenges that the next pandemic brings and address them as quickly as possible.”The investigators and Dr. Tinmouth reported no conflicts of interest.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.

“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.

Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.

The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.

Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.

Distinctive study design supports association

Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..

“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.

“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.

As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.

“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”

Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.

“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.

Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.

The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.

Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.

Distinctive study design supports association

Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..

“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.

“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.

As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.

“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”

Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.

“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.

Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.

The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.

Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.

Distinctive study design supports association

Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..

“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.

“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.

As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.

“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”

Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

Immunotherapy has already had a huge impact on treatment of patients with later stages of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): new clinical data are now showing benefits in patients with earlier stage disease.

Patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC showed a markedly improved disease-free survival (DFS) when atezolizumab (Tecentriq) was added onto adjuvant chemotherapy following resection, according to results from an interim analysis of the IMpower010 study.

Notably, the benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care was greatest in patients with expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumor, in whom the DFS improvement was a significant 34%.

This is the “first global phase 3 trial using an immune checkpoint inhibitor to show a disease-free survival outcome in early-stage NSCLC,” said lead researcher Heather Wakelee, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center.

She was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where the results will be presented on June 6.

Dr. Wakelee added that the “planned analysis for disease-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat populations will continue with longer-term follow-up.”

Asked whether the drug could be recommended for these patients based on the current results, Dr. Wakelee said that “obviously we need approval” for this use from the Food and Drug Administration, but she added that “the FDA has approved other agents, particularly most recently osimertinib [Tagrisso], based on a disease-free survival endpoint.”

These new results show that the benefit with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is “more profound” than with chemotherapy plus best supportive care, “and therefore, to me, it would be something I would want to offer my patients in that setting.”

Dr. Wakelee also emphasized the importance of screening for lung cancer, so that the disease is detected at earlier stages “when it is potentially curable.”

She also stressed the importance of biomarker testing for patients with resected disease “to look for EGFR mutations, which can be treated with EGFR [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] and also, at some point, to check for PD-L1 ... because, in this trial, the vast majority of benefit” appeared to be in those with PD-L1 expression on their tumors.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said that “immune checkpoint inhibitors have certainly changed the treatment landscape for many types of cancers” and the current study “is the first time we’ve seen an immunotherapy that’s effective in treating early-stage NSCLC.”

“This is an important advance in understanding the role of immunotherapy in earlier stage lung cancer” and “potentially a step forward for many patients.”
 

Study details 

The standard of care for many stage IB-IIIA NSCLC patients “has not changed for many years,” despite “significant progress” having been made in the treatment of more advanced disease, Dr. Wakelee commented.

Consequently, the majority of patients with resected NSCLC continue to receive adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, which has been shown to reduce the risk of disease recurrence by 16% in those with completely resected disease.

The new study set out to examine the benefit of adding atezolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in the global phase 3 IMpower010 study.

Patients had to have stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, with stage IB tumors at least 4 cm in size, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 analysis. Following complete resection, 1,280 patients were given up to four cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy.

Of those, 1,005 patients were then randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV every 3 weeks or best supportive care.

The interim results show that, after a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the addition of atezolizumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death versus best supportive care in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression of at least 1%, at a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .004).

At 24 months, the DFS rate was 74.6% among patients given atezolizumab versus 61% in those receiving best supportive care, reducing to 60% and 48.2%, respectively, at 36 months.

When looking across all randomized patients, the addition of atezolizumab was associated with a smaller reduction in the risk of recurrence of death versus best supportive care, at a hazard ratio of 0.79 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .02).

On the intention to treat analysis, the reduction in the risk of recurrence or death with atezolizumab was of borderline significance, at a hazard ratio of 0.81 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .04).

Dr. Wakelee pointed out that patients with stage IB disease, who represented around 12% of those in the trial, “tend to do better and we require longer time to see some of the disease recurrence outcomes,” and so these results are “preliminary.”

She also emphasized that the overall survival data are not yet mature and survival was not formally tested in the current analysis.

In terms of safety, the adverse event profile with atezolizumab was consistent with previous reports, the investigators noted in the abstract. However, Dr. Wakelee said at the briefing that “we had to stop treatment with atezolizumab in 18% of patients because of toxicity.”

All-grade adverse events were reported in 70.7% of the best supportive care group versus 92.7% among those given atezolizumab, while grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 11.5% and 21.8% of patients, respectively.

The study was funded by Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Wakelee reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Helsinn Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Mirati Therapeutics, Xcovery, ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Xcovery. She also reports uncompensated relationships with Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunotherapy has already had a huge impact on treatment of patients with later stages of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): new clinical data are now showing benefits in patients with earlier stage disease.

Patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC showed a markedly improved disease-free survival (DFS) when atezolizumab (Tecentriq) was added onto adjuvant chemotherapy following resection, according to results from an interim analysis of the IMpower010 study.

Notably, the benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care was greatest in patients with expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumor, in whom the DFS improvement was a significant 34%.

This is the “first global phase 3 trial using an immune checkpoint inhibitor to show a disease-free survival outcome in early-stage NSCLC,” said lead researcher Heather Wakelee, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center.

She was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where the results will be presented on June 6.

Dr. Wakelee added that the “planned analysis for disease-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat populations will continue with longer-term follow-up.”

Asked whether the drug could be recommended for these patients based on the current results, Dr. Wakelee said that “obviously we need approval” for this use from the Food and Drug Administration, but she added that “the FDA has approved other agents, particularly most recently osimertinib [Tagrisso], based on a disease-free survival endpoint.”

These new results show that the benefit with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is “more profound” than with chemotherapy plus best supportive care, “and therefore, to me, it would be something I would want to offer my patients in that setting.”

Dr. Wakelee also emphasized the importance of screening for lung cancer, so that the disease is detected at earlier stages “when it is potentially curable.”

She also stressed the importance of biomarker testing for patients with resected disease “to look for EGFR mutations, which can be treated with EGFR [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] and also, at some point, to check for PD-L1 ... because, in this trial, the vast majority of benefit” appeared to be in those with PD-L1 expression on their tumors.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said that “immune checkpoint inhibitors have certainly changed the treatment landscape for many types of cancers” and the current study “is the first time we’ve seen an immunotherapy that’s effective in treating early-stage NSCLC.”

“This is an important advance in understanding the role of immunotherapy in earlier stage lung cancer” and “potentially a step forward for many patients.”
 

Study details 

The standard of care for many stage IB-IIIA NSCLC patients “has not changed for many years,” despite “significant progress” having been made in the treatment of more advanced disease, Dr. Wakelee commented.

Consequently, the majority of patients with resected NSCLC continue to receive adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, which has been shown to reduce the risk of disease recurrence by 16% in those with completely resected disease.

The new study set out to examine the benefit of adding atezolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in the global phase 3 IMpower010 study.

Patients had to have stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, with stage IB tumors at least 4 cm in size, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 analysis. Following complete resection, 1,280 patients were given up to four cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy.

Of those, 1,005 patients were then randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV every 3 weeks or best supportive care.

The interim results show that, after a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the addition of atezolizumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death versus best supportive care in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression of at least 1%, at a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .004).

At 24 months, the DFS rate was 74.6% among patients given atezolizumab versus 61% in those receiving best supportive care, reducing to 60% and 48.2%, respectively, at 36 months.

When looking across all randomized patients, the addition of atezolizumab was associated with a smaller reduction in the risk of recurrence of death versus best supportive care, at a hazard ratio of 0.79 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .02).

On the intention to treat analysis, the reduction in the risk of recurrence or death with atezolizumab was of borderline significance, at a hazard ratio of 0.81 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .04).

Dr. Wakelee pointed out that patients with stage IB disease, who represented around 12% of those in the trial, “tend to do better and we require longer time to see some of the disease recurrence outcomes,” and so these results are “preliminary.”

She also emphasized that the overall survival data are not yet mature and survival was not formally tested in the current analysis.

In terms of safety, the adverse event profile with atezolizumab was consistent with previous reports, the investigators noted in the abstract. However, Dr. Wakelee said at the briefing that “we had to stop treatment with atezolizumab in 18% of patients because of toxicity.”

All-grade adverse events were reported in 70.7% of the best supportive care group versus 92.7% among those given atezolizumab, while grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 11.5% and 21.8% of patients, respectively.

The study was funded by Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Wakelee reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Helsinn Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Mirati Therapeutics, Xcovery, ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Xcovery. She also reports uncompensated relationships with Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunotherapy has already had a huge impact on treatment of patients with later stages of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): new clinical data are now showing benefits in patients with earlier stage disease.

Patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC showed a markedly improved disease-free survival (DFS) when atezolizumab (Tecentriq) was added onto adjuvant chemotherapy following resection, according to results from an interim analysis of the IMpower010 study.

Notably, the benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care was greatest in patients with expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumor, in whom the DFS improvement was a significant 34%.

This is the “first global phase 3 trial using an immune checkpoint inhibitor to show a disease-free survival outcome in early-stage NSCLC,” said lead researcher Heather Wakelee, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center.

She was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where the results will be presented on June 6.

Dr. Wakelee added that the “planned analysis for disease-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat populations will continue with longer-term follow-up.”

Asked whether the drug could be recommended for these patients based on the current results, Dr. Wakelee said that “obviously we need approval” for this use from the Food and Drug Administration, but she added that “the FDA has approved other agents, particularly most recently osimertinib [Tagrisso], based on a disease-free survival endpoint.”

These new results show that the benefit with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is “more profound” than with chemotherapy plus best supportive care, “and therefore, to me, it would be something I would want to offer my patients in that setting.”

Dr. Wakelee also emphasized the importance of screening for lung cancer, so that the disease is detected at earlier stages “when it is potentially curable.”

She also stressed the importance of biomarker testing for patients with resected disease “to look for EGFR mutations, which can be treated with EGFR [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] and also, at some point, to check for PD-L1 ... because, in this trial, the vast majority of benefit” appeared to be in those with PD-L1 expression on their tumors.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said that “immune checkpoint inhibitors have certainly changed the treatment landscape for many types of cancers” and the current study “is the first time we’ve seen an immunotherapy that’s effective in treating early-stage NSCLC.”

“This is an important advance in understanding the role of immunotherapy in earlier stage lung cancer” and “potentially a step forward for many patients.”
 

Study details 

The standard of care for many stage IB-IIIA NSCLC patients “has not changed for many years,” despite “significant progress” having been made in the treatment of more advanced disease, Dr. Wakelee commented.

Consequently, the majority of patients with resected NSCLC continue to receive adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, which has been shown to reduce the risk of disease recurrence by 16% in those with completely resected disease.

The new study set out to examine the benefit of adding atezolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in the global phase 3 IMpower010 study.

Patients had to have stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, with stage IB tumors at least 4 cm in size, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 analysis. Following complete resection, 1,280 patients were given up to four cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy.

Of those, 1,005 patients were then randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV every 3 weeks or best supportive care.

The interim results show that, after a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the addition of atezolizumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death versus best supportive care in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression of at least 1%, at a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .004).

At 24 months, the DFS rate was 74.6% among patients given atezolizumab versus 61% in those receiving best supportive care, reducing to 60% and 48.2%, respectively, at 36 months.

When looking across all randomized patients, the addition of atezolizumab was associated with a smaller reduction in the risk of recurrence of death versus best supportive care, at a hazard ratio of 0.79 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .02).

On the intention to treat analysis, the reduction in the risk of recurrence or death with atezolizumab was of borderline significance, at a hazard ratio of 0.81 after a median follow-up of 32.2 months (P = .04).

Dr. Wakelee pointed out that patients with stage IB disease, who represented around 12% of those in the trial, “tend to do better and we require longer time to see some of the disease recurrence outcomes,” and so these results are “preliminary.”

She also emphasized that the overall survival data are not yet mature and survival was not formally tested in the current analysis.

In terms of safety, the adverse event profile with atezolizumab was consistent with previous reports, the investigators noted in the abstract. However, Dr. Wakelee said at the briefing that “we had to stop treatment with atezolizumab in 18% of patients because of toxicity.”

All-grade adverse events were reported in 70.7% of the best supportive care group versus 92.7% among those given atezolizumab, while grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 11.5% and 21.8% of patients, respectively.

The study was funded by Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Wakelee reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Helsinn Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Mirati Therapeutics, Xcovery, ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Xcovery. She also reports uncompensated relationships with Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.